After nine successful years, Bowitch & Coffey is closing its doors. Starting August 1, 2021, Gary Bowitch and Dan Coffey will be practicing law in their own law firms and will continue to provide clients with the same high quality legal services in their areas of expertise. Their new contact information is:
Gary S. Bowitch
Attorney at Law
13 Willow Street
Castleton, NY 12033
Phone: 518-527-2232
Email: gbowitch@bowitchlaw.com
Bowitch Law New Website
Daniel Coffey
Coffey Law PLLC
17 Elk Street
Albany, NY 12207
Phone: 518-813-9500
Email: Dan@coffeylawny.com
Coffey Law New Website
New York’s Highest Court Re-Affirms Governmental Immunity
Imagine this scenario: a house gets built incorrectly, the town, village or city inspects and issues a certificate of occupancy (“CO”) notwithstanding the defects, the house burns down and the contractor who did the work doesn’t have any money or any insurance. Sound familiar? I am often asked in these circumstances if a subrogating carrier can sue the municipality that improperly issued the CO and pursue the municipality since the construction never should have been approved and your insureds never should have been allowed to live in the house. The answer – in most cases - is “No.”
How to Overcome a "Daubert" Challenge
Many of you may have heard of the US Supreme Court’s 1993 decision Daubert v. Merrill-Dow [1] in which the high court set a new federal standard for the admissibility of expert witness testimony in court. What is lesser known is that Congress subsequently amended the Federal Rules of Evidence (“F.R.E”) Rule 702 to incorporate Daubert. All fire investigators conducting a scene investigation should have a general familiarity with Daubert and F.R.E. 702 – because failure to do it correctly could result in your being barred from testifying in Court.
Fire Chief Survives “Daubert” Challenge and May Testify at Trial
Federal law has changed over the past sixteen years with respect to when an expert can testify. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 ruled in Daubert [1] that a judge may allow an expert to give an opinion at trial only if: (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. The test is whether the expert’s testimony will assist the trier of the facts in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.
More Articles...
- Appellate Court Dismisses Tire Rupture Case
- Insured and Tortfeasor Can’t Extinguish Health Insurer’s Subro Rights
- The “Work Product” Exclusion Does Not Bar Subrogation Claim
- Health Insurer’s subrogation rights not extinguished by release signed by insured
- Failure to Give Adverse Party Notice Could Lead to Spoliation Sanctions
